It's less than one month until the EU referendum, and the Telegraph has hosted a debate at the Hay Festival on whether or not Britain should "Leave" or "Remain".

The panel

Panelists for the Remain campaign included Labour's Alan Johnson, former Tory minister Nick Herbert and Roland Rudd, chairman of Finsbury Media. For the Leave campaign we had Dr Liam Fox, the Tory MP, economist Roger Bootle and Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson. Here's how it unfolded.

From left to right: Dr Liam Fox MP, Allison Pearson, Roger Bootle, Martha Kearney, Nick Herbert, Alan Johnson, and Roland Rudd are seen prior to speaking on stage in the Tata tent during the Telegraph Debate on the future of the EU, at The Hay Festival 2016Credit:
Telegraph

Security

Eurosceptic Tory MP Dr Liam Fox said there is "no risk of war" if Britain left the EU because it is Nato that was the driving force for peace across the continent, not the European Union as previously suggested by David Cameron:

Probably the best question of the night...

A little girl has waited patiently to ask her question. She says: "For defence purposes, will Britain be safer in the EU if Donald Trump becomes president?"

Young girl asks if UK would be safer In or Out if Trump becomes president

00:48

"Donald Trump is a mysoginist and a racist. He always blames the foreigner. When you hear someone saying they all blame the foreigners, you sort of know they are on the wrong side. So let's stay together," says Roland Rudd, chairman of Finsbury Media.

"I think the only sensible thing that Donald Trump has said is that Britain should leave the European Union. If he becomes President we will have to make sure he commits to Nato so we will have to use all our charm and resources to do that," says Allison Pearson.

"We will have to wait until the election result before we make British policy," says Dr Liam Fox.

Allison Pearson questioned over immigration numbers

Tory splits

"Do people want to debate the issues we've called a referendum on? This is a decision for the whole country.

"What people want is to have a debate and for the facts. The media are obssessed about the psycho-drama around Tory politicians, but in fact there is a great alliance, a very broad church, over half of Tory MPs."

Eurosceptic Dr Liam Fox says: "Even if we decided to leave the European Union, the one thing we require is political stability. The current Government will still be the government. Of course passions are strong. But our colleagues need to understand there will be a 24 June as well as a 23 June and we will have to come together for the country. As democrats we will have to do what the British people tell us.

Can we trust European security services?

Allison Pearson points out that her source in the MI6 believes the US security services "do not trust" European spy agencies and prefer to deal with Britain instead. She says that European nationals have allowed "nests" of terrorists, such as those in Brussels.

'If you bump into an eastern European in A&E they are more likely to be treating you'

Nato, not the EU, keeps us safe

"Uncontrolled migration provides us with an additional risk, but the security of the Western world has been held together by Nato," he says. "The American defence budget is bigger than all the others combined. They are carrying 72 per cent of the budget. It is Nato and the trans-Atlantic alliance that has kept the continent free from war, not I'm afraid the rather paltry contributions for our European neighbours."

EU could 'blow up' in our faces

Economist Roger Bootle said that he had only recently backed Brexit. He is worried that the EU will "blow up" and Britain will be a "minority body" that does not accept the central functions of the organisation, something which we will suffer for.

"Not all of us have always been against the EU. I decided fairly recently that I wanted us to leave. And that is because of change. What sort of position does it leave us in here in Britain? In what sense are we protected? We will be a minority body. "

Cameron's renegotiation

Former Tory minister Nick Herbert has defended David Cameron's renegotiation.

"The whole point of the agreement that the Prime Minister did is that it confirmed the special status that the UK has. We are going to be apart from moves to ever closer union. We will be able to stand aside from it. We can keep our own borders by being out of the Schengen Zone," he said.

NHS demand too great

Dr Liam Fox says that "we cannot control the demand" on the NHS.

"Yes we can decide on the supply side for the NHS but we cannot control the demand side. If you get an extra 3million people in your population, that makes it so difficult for local authorities and hospitals to plan.

"People can come to the United Kingdom and settle here whether we want it or not.

"In Spain and Portugal they have lost a million jobs and they want to come to the United Kingdom.

"A lot of people genuinely worry if they can get their child into a school and how long it will take to see a GP."

"By 2024 we have to create another 900,000 school places. A lot of people in Remain are floating above what many ordinary people have to face. Can I get my child in my first choice school? We've seen women labouring in the corridors. We can't even guarantee a good and safe birth for women in this country. This is because of the numbers. There just aren't the resources. The British people are being asked to suck this up."

Taking control of our tampons

Allison Pearson, the Brexit-backing Telegraph columnist, asks: "Why should we have to ask 27 other countries 'could we possibly have cheaper tampons'? It is ridiculous. If we want to lower the price of tampon packs, we should be able to do it."

Allison Pearson: 'If we want to lower the price of tampon packs, we should be able to do it'

Don't risk £60bn slash to Britain's economy

Alan Johnson, the Labour MP, says that quitting the EU would take £40-£60 billion out of the economy. He asks why Britain would want to walk away from the single market which has been "good for our economy".

Getting money back for Britain

Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson tells the anecdote that when she was in the hairdressers the other day the latest "scare stories" came flashing across the TV screen, which left the ladies having their hair down "laughing".

Allison Pearson flanked by Dr Liam Fox (left) and Roger Bootle, all for the Leave campaign

She says that the money we spend on the EU could be better spent supporting communities in places such as Wales and Cornwall, adding that these are "areas with the greatest need".

Britain's economy strong without the EU

Dr Liam Fox, the eurosceptic Tory MP, kicks off the debate on Britain's economy. He says: "It's strong because we have a good skilled workforce, we have a low tax, low regulation economy, good commercial law, some of the best universities, all of which will be there whether we are in our out of the European Union."

Dr Liam FoxCredit:
Paul Grover

Dr Fox points to the higher levels of unemployment within the EU when compared to Britain.

Alan Johnson, the pro-EU leader, says there are "unnecessary risks" with leaving.

Economist Roger Bootle dismisses the warnings from bodies such as the IMF. He says: "Let's take the financial crisis. What were these organisations saying before it? They were all saying the same thing, that everything was going to be fine."

"Are we going to put our economic record of success after the downturn at risk?," asks former Tory minister Nick Herbert.

There's a theme among the Remain camp's messages - many of them warn against the risks of Brexit.

Readers think both campaigns have done badly

Sadly, that concludes our reader debate. We've had so many submissions, many very thoughtful and some very long, that it's impossible to publish them all. I do apologise to those whose did not make it in, but thank everyone who contacted us.

One thing which came across very clearly was the level of disappointment with, and frankly contempt for, both campaigns. A great many readers said they found the whole debate to be completely dysfunctional. On a question of such importance, that is troubling.

I can only hope we've done a little better, and that our own debate at the Hay Festival will be more illuminating. I now hand over to Michael Wilkinson, who will be covering that.

Thank you John and Janet

John McTernan and Janet Daley must now step away from the live blog, but thanks to them and to everyone who sent inquestions.

In the meantime, reader Richard S Matthews has proposed a "patriotic" theme tune for the Vote Leave campaign, sung to the tune of Vera Lynn's 'There'll always be an England.' It's called "Give Us Back Our Britain."

They gave us away ladies and gentlemen, They gave us away ladies and gentlemen, Away this fair land we love so well Away to Brussels Hell Westminster has changed and gone awry, While they are still voices that cry,

Oh give us back our Britain, Before it's much too late Get rid of meddlesome Eurocrats, Let's control our state, Oh give us back our Britain Whilst we have identity, Where we control our borders, and our piece of sea

The gist is that Australia is an under-populated continent with much more capacity than we have. At the beginning of the 20th century its population was under 4 million. And in fact, its "points-based system" results in comparatively far higher levels of immigration than we have in Britain.

John McTernan: 10 positive facts about the EU

"I'd like to hear the Remain campaign detail to us some positives about being in the EU:

How many jobs has that created

How much trade has been generated

How much investment has been made into the UK (and specifically England)

"I'd expect these figures should be tangible, as surely this is analysis the Government is producing regularly. I've yet to hear from them a reason for staying, just many 'reasons' not to leave."

Not to be cowed, John McTernan has accordingly provided a list, which I present for your delectation.

10 positive facts about the EU

The benefits of Europe are worth £3,000 each year to average households, due to lower prices, trade and investment, according to the Confederation of British Industry. (Source: CBI, ‘Our Global Future’, November 2013)

As part of Europe, British businesses have free access to sell to 500 million consumers.

Independent experts have found that between 3 and 4 million jobs in Britain are linked to our trade with Europe.

44 per cent of the UK’s exports are to European Union countries; compared to just 15 per cent of EU exports to the UK. (Source: Office of National Statistics)

There are nearly 200,000 UK businesses which trade goods with the EU. (Source: HMRC)

The EU is the largest source of investment to the UK, worth £66m per day, bringing new jobs and higher wages to Britain. (Source: Office of National Statistics)

The average person in Britain saves around £450 every year because trading with Europe drives down the price of goods and services. (Source: European Commission)

The cost of flights has come down 40 per cent because the EU forced competition in the market allowing low-cost airlines like EasyJet to set up. (Source: European Commission)

Consumers now save 73p for every pound they used to spend on their mobile abroad, and “roaming charges” will be scrapped entirely by 2017. (Source: FCO)

The European Arrest Warrant has led to over 1,100 suspected criminals being arrested and returned to Britain to face justice; Britain has also sent 7,400 suspected criminals who had fled to our country back to the EU. (Source: National Crime Agency)

Janet Daley: The USA is a much better deal than the EU

Rod Saunders disagrees with Janet Daley about whether it makes sense for us to be members of a gigantic superstate:

If your argument had prevailed in the opposing views of the Founding Fathers there would have been no United States of America. Would you have voted against a setting up of an over-arching federal government and a central bank in the creation of the fledgling United States?

Janet Daley responds:

The states of the US were new entities, not centuries-old nations with separate languages and established historical cultures. And even given that crucial difference, the Constitution was drawn up to permit considerable independence to the individual states.

They still have separate legal systems and fiscal arrangements (suspects must be extradited across state boundaries before they can be tried for an offence committed in another state). Individual states levy their own taxes and have separate judiciaries and criminal codes (some have capital punishment, for example, where others do not). In many respects the states of the US have more independence from Washington than the member states of the EU have from Brussels.

In spite of this, there is a constant tension between federal power and states' rights: it remains a constant souce of dispute and dissatisfaction.

John McTernan: 'Our infrastructure can handle more immigration'

Trevor Anderson writes back to John McTernan, after asking him earlier about the effect of EU immigration:

"There are several other research papers that show that EU immigration either has a neutral or negative effect on our economy because the majority of migrants are low or unskilled workers. Your comments on the wisdom of George Osborne's increase in minimum wage is irrelevant in the context of your answer. It exists so therefore it's going to be a draw for immigrants.

John McTernan's response:

The draw for migrants, as you know, is a strong economy with vigorous jobs growth. Where there are low paid jobs – in hospitality, catering or agriculture – if were not filled by EU citizens there would be unfilled vacancies. Our economy and our wealth grows as a consequence.

Our infrastructure – in schools, health, transport and housing – has gone though a massive renewal in the last twenty years. We have easily absorbed new households over that period and we can continue to do so.

John McTernan: Greece ultimately has itself to blame

Many British people – especially those on the Left – watched the Greek debt crisis last year with horror. So there is a real emotional resonance to this contribution from George Ioakeimidis:

"If you really want to see what being in the EU actually means you only have to look at Greece. Trust me, I am a Greek myself, living in the UK (only for four years so far), and I wholeheartedly would suggest you to vote to Leave.

"Just look at the Greek governments of the past few years. Not one of them could actually do their job: govern. They simply come back from Brussels with a suitcase full of laws and reforms to pass, on which they have almost no say at all. It is really just blackmail dressed in nice suits.

"Just how difficult do you think it is to see the same happening to Italy, Spain or another country? EU has shown its true colours with Greece. It is simply the united states of Europe, where a finance minister of the top state decides for the future of everyone.

"Take it from an EU citizen living and working in your amazing country, leaving is the solution, even if it means I have to get a visa or make my life harder. I already saw the fall of my birthplace. I would hate if history was going to repeat itself in my second home."

John McTernan responds:

The simple truth is that what is happening to Greece is the consequence of the choices of Greek governments. They chose to join the euro and knowingly bought themselves huge economic problems.

The euro assists Germany massively by preventing its export trade being affected by a strong currency – in effect Southern Europe assists German growth. The payback is an inability to devalue out of economic trouble and enforced fiscal discipline courtesy of Germany too.

These problems were compounded by the Syriza government when they lied to the public to win an election and a referendum – and bought only worse cuts. Rarely has self-indulgence in politics been so rapidly reaped its own rewards.

The EU = Hotel California

More nightclubbing from Richard Matthews:

"The EU is like a nightclub where you were promised tax free drinks and endless prosperity (EEC 1975). Eventually when the drunkeness wore off you realised you'd been fleeced for lots of money, been lied to repeatedly, whilst your self determination ebbed away under a lot of club rules.

"The question being, can you leave 'the night club' ? In some ways the EU seems more like The Eagles' 'Hotel California'. You can enter but you can never leave."

I would only quibble with this analogy in one respect, which is that we do, potentially at least, appear to be leaving. But bravo nevertheless.

Janet Daley: Why the EU turns friends into enemies

Prof Richard D Griffiths writes:

"Thankfully we are no longer a nation defending its empire. Instead we are a modest post-industrial advanced economy earning its way in a modern international world by servicing its needs and keeping on good terms with our neighbours. The internet shows most people across the globe (bar some exceptions) are very similar and modern air travel brings them closer together. Over the centuries we have been enriched by migration and this is an unstoppable movement.

"Economic and common sense suggest we will get on best in Europe by being at its centre rather than drifting off into the Atlantic hoping that the USA may be remotely interested in us when instead its look more likely we and they will be Trumped. Our politicians should lead us to remain in Europe, but also drive to be more involved with our European friends."

Janet Daley's response

These comments – like much of the Remain argument – seem to me to miss the most salient point: the EU is a failing project.

It has been criminally irresponsible in dealing with the migration crisis. Far from coming to rational terms with the problem of a mass influx, it has permitted people trafficking to become an established fixture on the global scene through its inability to agree on sensible cooperative arrangements. Economically, it has created a disaster in southern Europe by forcing the Mediterranean countries into the German model which is utterly unsuitable to their conditions.

The strains that all this has caused have not brought member states "closer together" but driven their populations into furious, bitter resentments which threaten the stability of Europe and encourage the rise of dangerous populism. We are all much more likely to remain friends if we are not coerced into a homogeneous structure which ignores our separate and distinct histories and political traditions.

The long dark nightclub of the EU

The earlier analogy of being outside the EU to being stuck in a kebab shop has caused some merriment on Twitter. But reader Joseph Ashbee offers a counter-analogy:

"We've all been on a night out with a mate who doesn't know when to stop. Slurring 'lets stay for one more!' That's when you wake up several hours later, with a black eye, no memory, no money and regurgitated kebab down your shirt.

"Staying in the EU will continue to erode the sovereignty of British courts, government and individual rights. Surely it's better to leave when you can before you wake up in the alleyway next to the club?"

John McTernan: The pound is an asset, not a liability

Another part of Philippe Ugochukwu's email concerned the euro, and the difficulty of integrating multiple diverse economies into one currency.

"The critical question which I haven't seen addressed anywhere – and which for me is the clincher for the Brexit side – is as follows. So far, both sides have assumed that the EU and the euro (€) are two separate or loosely related entities and that therefore the fate of the euro doesn't matter so much to this debate. Except that it does!

"The way I see it, the whole of the EU (structure, laws, and policies) is setup to support, grow, and defend the euro (€), to the extent that the EU will do anything (and has said as much – see Mario Draghi) to save it. With that in mind, it is difficult to understand how anyone thinks that the UK would not suffer problems caused by its using a currency which is essentially governed (or heavily influenced if you want to argue semantics) by laws designed for a different currency.

"This can be seen at work in two examples: First, in the EU's insistence on using policy to defend the principle of "solidarity" to the point of national bailouts which the UK pays into, and Secondly, in the EU's insistence on using policy to defend the principle of free movement which then incentivises mass movement of peoples to a stronger currency, which is bound nonetheless to this principle by virtue of sharing the same laws as a weaker currency.

"Ultimately, it seems that it is not a good idea to have one currency governed/heavily influenced by laws designed for a different currency given that this creates deep, unnecessary, and persistent wrinkles. I'd like to challenge the Remain side to admit that until the UK swaps GBP for the euro, it won't gain as much from staying in as Remainers like to claim. In fact, it is likely to lose more from staying in. Therefore, why shouldn't UK voters treat this referendum as a vote on whether the UK should swap GBP for the euro?"

John McTernan's response

You raise interesting questions about the £ and the €. However, I disagree with your conclusion that Britain will not do as well within the EU as Remain argue unless it joins the euro.

The argument against the UK joining the single currency remains the same as it always was: our economy needs independent control of its own interest rates to manage properly (though, in this post-Great Receasion period we are seeing the limits of what they can do tested). Bank of England policy in this sits alongside the other measures of government to stimulate the economy – from social security transfers to investment in infrastructure. The very rapid recovery in employment in the UK, particularly stark compared to France, shows the beneficial impact.

The question of free movement of labour is separate from the existence of the euro – it is a fundamental freedom and parallels the free movement of capital and goods and services which does so much to increase competition and this prosperity.

It is also not at all clear that the relative strength or weakness of currencies is a pull factor for migration. The euro has arguably been stronger than the pound over recent years, and it is a strength of our economy that we can devalue relative to our trade partners. Greece, Spain and Ireland – trapped as they are within the euro - would probably benefit from our freedom!

Janet Daley: Gigantic trading blocks don't work in today's world

Philippe Ugochukwu has written a long, considered email which we can't really publish in full. But I did forward one part of it to Janet Daley. Philippe asks:

"The Remain argument goes that 'unity' is the best solution to the current raft of global challenges. This is as close as anyone has got to admitting that underlying all of this is the conundrum of how to counter China's rise as an undemocratic yet economic and military superpower. We in the West used to assume that democracy was necessary to economic growth. However, by proving otherwise – and as suggested by Eamonn Fingleton in his book 'In the Jaws of the Dragon' – China is effectively shaping the West rather than the other way round. And as Western nations try to reorganize themselves to counter China's rise, the West is becoming more and more like that which it is trying to defeat..."

Janet Daley's response

The argument that "unity" – that is, membership of a super-bloc – is preferable to singularity in a big, bad, dangerous global environment is the basis for most of the Remain economic case.

I find it unconvincing. It seems just as plausible to argue that the most valuable assets in a changing, volatile world are flexibility, dynamism and the ability to adapt quickly to unexpected circumstances. Being tied into a sclerotic, clunking, top-heavy megalith which requires the agreement of 28 members to make any sort of decision or change of policy is the very opposite of this.

An indivdual state run by a parliamentary government which is answerable only to its own people and sensitive to their particular concerns seems a much more viable model for coping with an economic future which is more and more unpredictable.

Janet Daley: The EU is undemocratic, dangerous, and destructive

Our next question is to Janet Daley, and it comes from Iain Sinclair Stewart of Kirkcaldy, Fife.

Iain left the UK in 1967 and only returned in July 2014. His question is simple: "Please help me understand the mess we are in." And here's how he summarises his understanding of that mess:

1972 – UK joined a Trading Club known as the Common Market.

1975 – UK had a referendum on remaining in this club and the result was that the British people voted to stay in this club.

Since then, this Trading Club has developed into a political union.

Successive UK governments have given away authority over life in UK to an organisation in Brussels, Belgium and paid this organisation a large sum of money to govern large areas of UK life without the permission of the British people to whom they are responsible and who pay the UK government to govern all of the UK.

The British people do not want to be governed by people they have not elected and who take their taxes. The UK government has allowed this to happen.

This situation is wrong. The UK government should correct it – not by giving the British people a referendum but by doing the job they were elected to do, which is to govern all of the UK in every area of UK life including trading as confirmed by the British people in 1975.

By deciding to hold a referendum, the UK government is abdicating its responsibility and the Queen should dissolve Parliament.

The next UK government should re­establish the situation which obtained in 1975 and take back control of the UK citizens’ lives as they are elected and paid to do.

Janet Daley's response

You are right that the present situation is almost beyond comprehension when the starting point was our agreement to join a 'common market' (now known as the single market), It is that first fundamental deception – and it certainly was a deliberate deception – that is at the heart of the discontent which is now reverberating across Europe. What was presented as a trade agreement has become a political project whose objective is to undermine the self-determination of nation states.

At the time it was designed this seemed like an enlightened path away from nationalism and the hideous crimes of the twentieth century. But now that the nation states which were most responsible for those crimes have willingly and sincerely rehabilitated themselves, the Project has become contradictory: it seeks to ensure democratic values such as liberty and tolerance by subsuming the democratic institutions of the member states under an oligarchy which is accountable to no one. If you believe in the most fundamental principle of modern democracy – that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the people – then you must see the EU's structure as dangerous and destructive.

This is not just an abstract question. If the people (as voters) have no power to replace those who are in control, then all the other considerations – about economic advantage and security – are put out of their reach and recall. It took centuries to establish the concept of those who rule being directly answerable to the 'demos'. If we dispense with it, it is likely to become a footnote – a brief experiment – in human history.

John McTernan: immigration is a net benefit

Our first question is for John McTernan, and it comes from reader Trevor Anderson:

"MigrationWatch UK states that the tax revenue from EU immigrants will not cover the cost of the public services they receive. This is supported by the Migration Observatory, who are categoric that the vast majority of immigrants coming in from Eastern European countries are low skilled and therefore their tax revenues will not pay for the public services they receive. Only higher skilled workers make a net positive difference. We therefore have no control of who comes in from the EU.

"In the event of a remain vote, what effect will unfettered immigration at current levels (possibly more when in 2020 the new living wage reaches £9.00 an hour) have on our infrastructure and therefore our economy?"

Answer from John Mcternan

There is a useful commentary by Jonathan Portes (@jdportes) of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) in which he says:

"The most robust recent paper, produced by researchers at the OECD, found that a 50 per cent increase in the migration rate to the UK is associated with about a 0.3 per cent increase in productivity (which is a relatively good proxy for GDP per capita over the medium run). This is largely because migrants to the UK are relatively highly skilled compared to the native population."

This, in short, is the case for EU – and broader – migration. It raises our productivity and in the long run our prosperity. The entire piece by Portes is worth reading as it gives a measured analysis of the recent Treasury analysis of the economic consequences of Brexit and asks why the effects of a changed migration policy weren't modelled.

As for the Living Wage, that is another case entirely. It will have its biggest impact on the workforce who are already here – endangering many jobs where there is no possibility of raising margins, either through prices or productivity, to afford it. It was a dangerous gamble for George Osborne to impose a wage hike on industry without out seeking advice from the Low Pay Commission on its impact on the labour market. Any marginal impact on immigration will be as naught compared to this danger.

The EU is not responsible for 'third world' migration

A lot of people are blaming the EU for an influx of "third world" migration from outside Europe itself. Many of those contributors have invoked Tower Hamlets, where 44 per cent of the population is "white British" and the next largest ethnic group is Bangladeshi.

The problem is that, by and large, non-European immigrants do not come to us through the EU. Yes, in theory, people could be moving to other EU countries and then onto Britain. But we actually have some data from the Oxford Migration Observatory about how often this really happens.

As you can see, Britain's foreign-born population is dominated by three groups: British nationals who were born outside the UK, EU nationals who were born inside the EU, and people from outside the EU who have not been naturalised. Together, these groups comprise about 7.7 million people.

What's missing? EU nationals who were born outside the EU. This number is comparatively tiny: there are only 264,000 in the country. In other words, the vast majority of people who come to Britain from the EU were born in the EU. And the vast majority of British residents who were born outside the EU would still be coming here if we weren't a member of it.

'An out vote will stir up hate against immigrants'

Strong words from Malcolm Elwell :

"Very little has been said about the potential aftermath of a vote to leave. As we have experienced during the last century, those disenfranchised seek retribution from others. Are we to see the Poles or other Eastern European communities attacked or demonised?

"The 'out' group are stirring up a potential frenzy that will be difficult to control if things go bad. Their focus on immigration is very dangerous and irresponsible. We are one very small step away from blaming 'the Jews'."

Buried by emails

Not surprisingly, our mailbag for this one is huge. If your comment doesn't appear, please forgive us; there simply isn't time to publish the voluminous and often well-informed responses we are receiving.

'EU migration squeezes out the rest of us'

Jameel Qadri, a reader from London, writes:

"I am an immigrant from a non-EU country. Because of the situation created by the mass migration from Europe, immigrants from non-EU countries have come under massive pressure. Rules to enter the country or to stay in the country have been tightened so much that it is next to impossible to come and continue to live in this country. This is affecting the UK’s talent pool as people from non-EU countries with skills and talent are discouraged."

On balance, Jameel says he remains unsure. But this is a key Leave argument. Pro-immigration eurosceptics such as Boris Johnson or Douglas Carswell have repeatedly argued that the current situation is discriminatory towards non-EU immigrants.

How many people come here from the EU?

The European Union accounts for about 43 per cent of the UK's immigrants. Another 44 per cent comes from outside the EU, with the remainder being returning Brits.

These figures are interesting. Indisputably the EU accounts for a huge number of people entering the country. But we actually take in more from outside it – despite repeated declarations from politicians that they wish to reduce net migration.

It makes you wonder what would actually happen after a Leave vote. Would politicians really reduce immigration? Or would it actually drop by far less than everyone assumes?

'There is almost no vetting'

A reader, who prefers to remain anonymous, writes:

"EU now stands for Everyone Upset and I believe the cause of this upset is quite simple: numbers. This is not about race or creed or religion, though it is abused as such. It is about the sheer number of people coming into this country far, far too quickly and the extremely poor management of such.

"In the past we have successfully, in most cases, integrated immigrants from all walks of life as their numbers have not been prohibitive and country-wide disruption was at a minimum. Nowadays we have over 300,000 a year, adding to the millions of the last few years and the prospect of millions more coming from new EU members such as Albania. It is monstrous to believe that an island can support such without devastating consequences. And there is almost no vetting of the people that come in.

"The middle classes are probably not feeling this pressure just yet but the working people of this country are. Every immigrant needs a home, a job, a doctor, a hospital, multiple school places, etc, etc.

"The other, often missed point is that this freedom of movement was based on a fluffy ideology where Brits would go to Hungary, Romanians would come here and would be harmonious. What tosh. No one from Britain can go to Romania, et al and get a job that pays four times their normal wage and a health service for free. There is no movement except this way."

"If you belong anywhere in the wide spectrum of sensible opinion in this country, you will accept that immigration has to be controlled to a degree. Only those on the extremes of both Left and Right believe in either an open door, “come one, come all” approach or a “sorry, we’re full up" sign on the country’s shutters.

Who do voters trust more on the issues?

Leave's advantage on immigration is clear. More than twice as many people think it's ahead. The Remain advanage on the economy is much narrower, with surprisingly few in the middle. But the economy is usually rated higher than immigration as an issue of importance. Perhaps security will be the decider. Both campaigns are neck and neck in these numbers.

Expats for Britain

"Bonjour from Switzerland," says Roy Slater Hill, who moved there in 2008 with his wife and daughter specifically to get away from the EU. Switzerland, he notes, is "one of the most democratic countries in the world."

"The British are a courageous enterprising nation and they will prosper more 'out' in my view. Seize the one chance of taking back control or the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels will walk all over you!"

Brian Anthony Farrelly agrees. He has lived in Norway for 50 years, so he's not entitled to vote, but he draws a comparison with Norway's own referendums on entering the EU.

"The pro-EU propaganda then, as now, has concentrated on the economy, security, etc, and has totally neglected the question of sovereignty and of democracy. Unfortunately the Brexiters have been split, and have not used that vital point to their advantage. They have let themselves be portrayed as racist anti-immigrants, Little Englanders, and gone on the defensive against that. They should be attacking the EU on the economic mismanagement which has led to enormous unemployment in many EU countries, to disgusting waste of resources in the moves between Brussels and Strasbourg, and on the political mismanagement in the Middle East which has led to tragic mass movements of refugees and to terror attacks in the heart of Europe.

"I look forward to Independence Day, but I am aware that the struggle won't be over. Here in Norway the politicians sneaked us into the European Economic Area by not having a referendum on the issue, so we are stiill stongly affected by the EU. Watch out for that trick when the day comes."

Peter Johnson, who lives in Spain, would prefer to stay. He writes:

"Having lived in France and Spain and travelled extensively through Europe (thanks to visa free travel) I have seen at first hand the benefits of being in the EU and I have also seen it's faults. On balance I am in favour of staying in and helping to fix the problems from within. When our car breaks down we see if it can be fixed before rushing out to buy a new one."

My free trade area is bigger than yours

More on the quality of the campaign. Pramesh Popat writes:

"The people of this nation are beginning to see through Project Fear. Fear is temporary, regret forever. Don't let your fear of what could happen make nothing happen. Be positive, be optimistic, be determined."

Timothy Allen says:

"The level of debate so far is lower than one can find in a school playground – 'My dad is bigger than your dad', 'It’s my ball and you are not playing', 'I will tell my big brother and he will hit you' ,etc. The contempt shown to the electorate is beyond belief."

And Joshua Bastow, 16 years old, finds a similar point of comparison:

"The campaign reminds me of a Victorian classroom that you see in the movies, with the Remain campaign like the unreasonable teacher who try to scare and punish the children for not doing as they are told by the establishment."

That said, he adds, he would rather have this rambunctious and rude campaign than a "play nice" one enforced by a bloodless federal bureaucracy.

The great free trade kebab shop

Marco's logic (and mine) is not persuasive to everyone. Pyers Symon of Worcester summons a memorable analogy to explain his "deep concern" at the "complete lack of planning."

"A meme going around describes the future perfectly in the following terms:

"We have all been on a night out with a mate who, when you are in a club, says 'it's s--- here, let's go somewhere else'. Then when you leave, you realise that he has no idea where to go and the place that you have left won't let you back in again. Without a decent follow up plan, a leave vote could see the UK standing in a kebab shop arguing whose fault it is.

We don't need no stinking plan

At least one person agrees with me. Reader Marco Teves says it shouldn't matter what our deal will be after we leave the EU.

"This style of sophistry is unworthy of any who claim to be acting in Britain's best interest. This referendum is about whether we remain or leave the EU, period.

"Should we vote leave, our sovereign parliament of Westminster would then sit and debate the best way forward, whether that be through EFTA, membership of the EEA, single market or otherwise. Our democratically elected MPs as our representatives would then vote and decide on our behalf.

"In other words, they would be expected to do the job for which they are paid."

'This referendum has made me doubt democracy'

As if to underline David Roots' piece about doubt, here's a sobering take from Jonathan Yonge:

"The events of the referendum and behaviour of politicians have completely changed my view of politics and world affairs. For 50 years I have been naive to think that democracy ensures that those running the country must have our interests at heart, otherwise they are voted out. This is not working. Why ?

"Is it cynical manipulation by politicians, or maybe the quality of the electorate's decision-making? What is wrong? If our politicians are untrustworthy, does this support the idea of giving power to EU technocrats instead?"

It's not 'Project Fear' but 'Project Doubt'

"The media, and both the Leave and Remain cmpaigns, are using the term 'Project Fear' to describe scare stories to influence the debate. I believe that this is something of a misnomer.

"For us, the electorate, doubt is actually far stronger emotion than fear. Why? Because because doubt is the fear of the unknown. And the tactic is to cloud all aspects of the debate with a fear of the unknown.

"After all, some scare stories will have an element of truth. The intention is that although we are smart enough to see through blatant propaganda, the constant drip, drip, drip of scare stories will ferment in our minds so that we see being out of the EU not as us having, on balance, possibilities of success, but as having risks of failure.

"Fear can be countered or rationalised, but doubt is more insidious. Perhaps Leave should explain this point."

Asa Bennett: Have the EU's accounts been properly audited?

A couple of people have emailed in claiming that the EU's accounts have not been signed off for years. This is a claim frequently made by Brexiteers. The truth is more complicated.

Auditors actually gave a "clean opinion" of the EU budget for their last review published, back in 2014, and judged that revenue taken was "legal and regular".

But what stopped them from giving it complete approval was the fact they had been “materially affected by error". Error is not a euphemism for fraud, although that is a contributing factor, as auditors found most of the money lost derived from people getting caught out by EU rules and bureaucracy. This problem is so pervasive that the European Commission admitted things like "mistakes in a form for a tender procedure for an airport project" can lead to the spending being deemed in error. The strictness of EU rules are helping stop the accounts from getting a clean bill of health.

That’s not to say this inefficiency should be ignored, as losses are deemed “material” when they total over 2 per cent of the entire Budget, which amounts to around €3 billion a year. This has been the case since at least 2006, the auditors admit. Even fraud alone can run into the hundreds of millions each year.

Of course, Brussels chiefs don’t handle most of the money, as member states are responsible for approximately 80 per cent of it, with the rest of it managed directly by them. However, the Commission bears ultimate responsibility for the correct implementation of the budget, and still lets billions of euros be wasted.

'Cameron's tactics have poisoned this debate'

A punchy contribution from John Shipley of Anglesey:

"While both sides in the debate have been guilty of exaggeration and hyperbole, I do believe that the trend was set by the increasingly desperate attempts of David Cameron to ensure a win for Remain. The first fiction was his tepid renegotiation of our terms of membership with the EU and his incredible pretence that fundamental change had been achieved. Since then it has become obvious that he would never in any circumstances have supported a UK departure from the EU, contrary to what he has said previously.

"Then there has been the assault upon the integrity and objectivity of the Civil Service. The Treasury report harks back to the dark days of Blair's dodgy dossier. I am not surprised that the Telegraph's own Liam Halligan was livid, as his own column obviously showed.

"Many more examples can be given, but it all boils down to the fact that what was to be a stage - managed event to pacify his own party and counter the Ukip threat has somehow slipped the Prime Minister's control, despite the support of big business and other beneficiaries of EU largesse. So now the vote to remain, though still favourite, is not quite the forgone conclusion that our PR Prime Minister thought it would be."

Reader John Karavics agrees:

"Would like to raise the devious way in which Cameron and his stay-in crowd have used their positions to conduct an unfair campaign. The biased brochure that was sent to every household just before the campaign started the scary forecasts that are untrue the unfair biased guideline sent out with postal votes. Disgraceful coming from someone who is supposed to be leading all of the country."

The hole at the heart of the Leave campaign

Reader C.A. Stuart says:

"Please, can we get a clear answer – that's estimated annual figures – to what the Brexit camp is expecting to see regarding immigration both from the EU and from the rest of the world should they win the referendum (recognising what Norway has to accept to trade with the current EU states)?"

Whether Britain would have to accept a similar deal is an important question. Remainers claim we would, and therefore would end up basically agreeing to most EU rules without having a chance to shape them or veto them. David Davis disagreed strongly in these pages, arguing that Britain would get its own unique arrangement.

In some ways, I think this debate, and Mr Stuart's question, is unfair. There's a school of Eurosceptic thought which says that even if we accept a Norway-style deal, at least we would be out of the EU. We would be more able in future to pick and choose what we want, and exit if we wanted to. If you are concerned about sovereignty, staying in the same position but having more ability to leave it still counts as a net win.

Again, there's an argument that this shouldn't matter. Brexit could mean lower immigration, or it could mean higher immigration; the point is that it would finally be within the control of our own domestic politicians. But this is not how campaigns work. Polls show that immigration is one of the strongest weapons the Leave campaign have: contemplating an extra 100,000 people a year makes Remain voters three times more likely to become "unsure".

Credit: Ipsos Mori

To have any hope of winning, Leave therefore need to pound the immigration issue into the dust. They need to run their own "Project Fear", scaring the British public with the prospect of ever-higher net migration. And to do that, they need to stay pretty quiet about the fact that some of them actually really like immigration.

'There are many in the EU who agree with us'

"Thank you for this opportunity to comment. It appears that it the campaigns are more about personal points scoring and a 'circus of ambition" as you neatly put it.'

"So far the only person I have had faith in is Sir Alan Sugar. He has said he has seen lots of 'daft' ideas in his time and leaving the EU is the daftest. The point that everyone has forgotten is, as he has been reported as saying: 'Because this isn’t a general election. We can’t say in 5 years: “oh it didn't work – we’ll just have another vote”. It’s the most serious vote you’ll probably make in your lifetime.'

"This sways me to an 'In' vote with the hope that at the next general election the people of this country vote for people who will be strong with the EU and fight everything we do not agree with. There are many countries who will join us in that if we take the lead."

Both sides began neck-and-neck at 40 per cent and remain tied, albeit at 41 per cent. They have been fighting to persuade voters, and have only managed to increase their support by 1 per cent each.

Meanwhile, Populus has been asking voters each week to name the news stories they have noticed about the referendum, but has found in most weeks that the most noticed story has been, in fact, “nothing”. Bravo, everyone.

Campaigners have had years to prepare for this fight, and what are they offering? Little by way of facts, and lots by way of hysteria. Politicians have spent months hectoring voters about how they should vote, telling them that both options spell doom for the country.

And that’s just the work of the official campaigns. Many politicians have decided to make the referendum all about themselves. Jeremy Corbyn has spent more time worrying about whether his supporters would think he was a “red Tory” sell-out than actually making the case to young Britons for voting Remain. Nigel Farage has had more fun slagging off his fellow Brexiteeers than any Remainers, with his party’s one MP Douglas Carswell and anyone from Vote Leave a particular target of his ire.

Britons have not been able to vote on their European future in over 40 years, so this vote could have been a chance for the current political class to do their democratic duty and help voters make an informed choice. But they have instead turned it into a game, with the only choice offered to voters being which type of apocalypse they want to plunge Britain into.

One of the few claims campaigners are right to say is that Britain’s future in Europe is more important than any general election, which makes it even sadder that politicians have turned this into a hysterical shrieking match. No wonder the public is so turned off by the debate.